Search
Search results
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb in Books
Apr 13, 2019
"The crime itself was indefensible. The brilliant, spoiled and bored sons of two of Chicago's wealthiest families planned to commit the perfect crime both for the thrill of and to prove their perverse misunderstanding of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy of the 'superman,' who was above all law so long as he made no mistake. Their plan, worked out over several months, was to kidnap and immediately kill one of their younger neighbors and hide his body. They would then demand and collect a ransom. The body would never be discovered, the crime would never be solved and only they would know that they had prevailed over ordinary human beings and their simple-minded legal system. But far from being the 'perfect crime,' the murder of 14-year-old Bobby Franks turned out to be amateurishly botched. Before any ransom could be paid, the boy's body was discovered in a culvert near where Nathan Leopold often went bird-watching. A pair of telltale glasses were found adjacent to the body. They were easily traced to Leopold who first came up with a paper-thin alibi and soon thereafter confessed to the crime. His fellow murderer likewise confessed. Each of the 'superboys' placed blame for the actual killing on the other." - Alan M. Dershowitz
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
The Boy Who Drew Monsters
7.0
Rate It
Book
From the New York Times bestselling author of The Stolen Child comes a hypnotic literary horror...
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Captain America: Civil War (2016) in Movies
Jul 24, 2017
Battle Royale
Contains spoilers, click to show
This movie is amazing. I know, I’m supposed to start with an intro but this film is just too good. I knew that I would love it and that I was looking forward to it for a fairly long time, but I loved this movie in ways that I didn’t even expect to. Based on the seminal Mark Millar event comic that saw most of the Marvel comic book universe go up against each other, this movie pits the heroes of the MCU against each other, which results in an exciting battle of all of the heroes that we’ve grown to love. The film doesn’t take much else from the comic though, other than the idea of the heroes fighting one another, there is no talk of exposing secret identities here, nor is there a battle between the massive amount of combatants that there were in the comic. If someone had told me these facts before I saw the film, I would have been going into the movie on a downer, but the thing is that this movie doesn’t have to be totally faithful to the comic book to be great, which is a credit to the writers and directors of the film. Watching the film is still like watching a comic book onscreen, just not the same comic book that you have previously read, which is awesome.
The vast majority of the cast of characters that have been introduced in the MCU so far are present here, besides Thor and Hulk. I can see why they omitted these characters, as they really would have given whatever side they chose an unfair advantage. We are left with two sides, there is Team Cap, made up of Cap, Falcon, Bucky, Ant Man, Scarlett Witch and Hawkeye and then there is Team Stark, made up of Iron Man, Vision, Black Widow, War Machine, Black Panther and Spiderman. I went into this movie siding with Team Cap, probably because Iron Man was ultimately the antagonist in the book, but as the film progressed, I have to admit that I could see either side of the argument. The fight sequences are exciting, due to the excellent stunt work and convincing use of CGI, also the acting here is surprisingly deep, especially for a Marvel movie, with several cast members giving passionate, convincing performances. While the action and humour that we have come to expect from a Marvel movie is present here, this film definitely does take on a darker tone in a few sequences and it also questions the idea of superheroes as a concept, there is not only a physical battle present in this movie, but also a psychological one as well as a socio-political one.
The score is used well, there is actually not too many songs present and the score is mostly made up of orchestral instrumental pieces, which also tells you something about the tone of this movie in comparison with previous Marvel films. The editing is also good, snappy enough to keep a consistent pace, while being clear enough to still tell a comprehensible, cohesive story.
Okay it is becoming difficult to continue writing this review without spoiling the movie, so I’ll do a quick summary then I will delve into spoiler territory. This is probably the best Marvel movie to date. It works as a sequel to Captain America Winter Soldier, it works as an ensemble Avengers piece, it works as a sufficient introduction to several new characters and it also blends the more serious tone of previous Cap movies with the more light hearted tone we have previously seen in the Avengers movies. It is a well told, tightly woven story, that still feels large in scope, which is not an easy thing to achieve, *coughs* Batman V Superman, *coughs.* While it’s not what I expected to get when they told us they were making Civil War, it is still a fantastic comic book movie, 9/10.
Okay, spoiler time. This movie came out in the UK a week before it did in America, so I have had the opportunity to see it twice so far. However, I am very aware that this movie isn’t opening in America until May 5th, so I do want to make it very clear that if you haven’t seen the film yet, you really should before reading the rest of this review.
They absolutely nail Spiderman here, in every way. He is the most faithful adaption we have had on the big screen to date, Tom Holland was the perfect choice and it there is no doubt that this young actor clearly has a very bright future ahead of him. Aunt May is played by Marisa Tomei in the film and because she is so young compared to comic book Aunt May, I did initially have my doubts, but she also nails the small role that she has here. The suit is also awesome and after seeing Civil War, I honestly cannot wait for Spiderman: Homecoming. Black Panther is another new character that they introduce and do a good job with, they establish him quickly and clearly and from the get go, we understand this character and his motivations for feeling the ways that he does. The other surprise star of the film is Ant Man, who for the first time onscreen, becomes Giant Man and it is epic. This would have been so easy to make cheesy and just have it not work at all, but here it is convincing and very well implemented into the airport battle. The CGI during this scene is also fantastic. The airport scene is also a highlight of the movie, to see all of these characters onscreen together is truly amazing and as comic book fan I was in heaven. I still can’t believe that we got to see Spiderman making a Star Wars reference, whilst he was swinging around Giant Man, the nerd part of my brain went into overload and I physically couldn’t wipe off the massive, stupid grin that was on my face. The final battle is also pretty cool.
The third act starts off with Tony Stark deciding that he may be wrong about Bucky and that it wasn’t him who set off the bomb in Wakanda, so he, Bucky and Cap team up again to go and confront Zemo, but then the three are shown a CCTV tape from one of Bucky’s past missions, which reveals that it was in fact Bucky that killed Tony’s parents when he was being mind controlled and that Cap knew about this the whole time. This results in Tony being overcome with rage and attacking Cap and Bucky, during the fight he rips off Bucky’s robot arm, but Cap manages to overpower him and he sticks his shield through Tony’s ark reactor, shutting down his suit. We then learn that Black Panther has followed Tony and intends to kill Bucky for setting off the bomb that killed his father, but when he learns that Zemo was behind it, he confronts him and demands an explanation. Zemo tells him that his family were killed when Ultron attacked Sekovia and that he has planned to destroy the Avengers ever since, but because he knew he couldn’t take them down himself, he decided to instead pit them against each other and let them kill one another. Panther then decides that he is sick of seeing people being consumed by revenge and decides to let Zemo live, but Zemo attempts to kill himself anyway, before Panther stops him, telling him that he must remain alive to answer for his crimes. After their fight, Stark tells Cap that he doesn’t deserve his shield, and so Cap drops his shield and helps Bucky out of the bunker. The movie ends with Cap busting his teammates out of prison, where they were put after the airport battle and going into hiding in Black Panther’s mansion house in Wakanda. While the movie is fairly long I did feel that it could have went on a while longer, it’s almost as if the films are at a point now where they know they are going to continue the story in a few months, so they don’t even bother writing a proper ending for the films. This is the only criticism that I have though and like I said we will be getting another Marvel movie in a few months anyway so it doesn’t really matter how this one ends. So yeah, best Marvel movie so far and whether you are a comic book fan or not, this is a damn good time.
The vast majority of the cast of characters that have been introduced in the MCU so far are present here, besides Thor and Hulk. I can see why they omitted these characters, as they really would have given whatever side they chose an unfair advantage. We are left with two sides, there is Team Cap, made up of Cap, Falcon, Bucky, Ant Man, Scarlett Witch and Hawkeye and then there is Team Stark, made up of Iron Man, Vision, Black Widow, War Machine, Black Panther and Spiderman. I went into this movie siding with Team Cap, probably because Iron Man was ultimately the antagonist in the book, but as the film progressed, I have to admit that I could see either side of the argument. The fight sequences are exciting, due to the excellent stunt work and convincing use of CGI, also the acting here is surprisingly deep, especially for a Marvel movie, with several cast members giving passionate, convincing performances. While the action and humour that we have come to expect from a Marvel movie is present here, this film definitely does take on a darker tone in a few sequences and it also questions the idea of superheroes as a concept, there is not only a physical battle present in this movie, but also a psychological one as well as a socio-political one.
The score is used well, there is actually not too many songs present and the score is mostly made up of orchestral instrumental pieces, which also tells you something about the tone of this movie in comparison with previous Marvel films. The editing is also good, snappy enough to keep a consistent pace, while being clear enough to still tell a comprehensible, cohesive story.
Okay it is becoming difficult to continue writing this review without spoiling the movie, so I’ll do a quick summary then I will delve into spoiler territory. This is probably the best Marvel movie to date. It works as a sequel to Captain America Winter Soldier, it works as an ensemble Avengers piece, it works as a sufficient introduction to several new characters and it also blends the more serious tone of previous Cap movies with the more light hearted tone we have previously seen in the Avengers movies. It is a well told, tightly woven story, that still feels large in scope, which is not an easy thing to achieve, *coughs* Batman V Superman, *coughs.* While it’s not what I expected to get when they told us they were making Civil War, it is still a fantastic comic book movie, 9/10.
Okay, spoiler time. This movie came out in the UK a week before it did in America, so I have had the opportunity to see it twice so far. However, I am very aware that this movie isn’t opening in America until May 5th, so I do want to make it very clear that if you haven’t seen the film yet, you really should before reading the rest of this review.
They absolutely nail Spiderman here, in every way. He is the most faithful adaption we have had on the big screen to date, Tom Holland was the perfect choice and it there is no doubt that this young actor clearly has a very bright future ahead of him. Aunt May is played by Marisa Tomei in the film and because she is so young compared to comic book Aunt May, I did initially have my doubts, but she also nails the small role that she has here. The suit is also awesome and after seeing Civil War, I honestly cannot wait for Spiderman: Homecoming. Black Panther is another new character that they introduce and do a good job with, they establish him quickly and clearly and from the get go, we understand this character and his motivations for feeling the ways that he does. The other surprise star of the film is Ant Man, who for the first time onscreen, becomes Giant Man and it is epic. This would have been so easy to make cheesy and just have it not work at all, but here it is convincing and very well implemented into the airport battle. The CGI during this scene is also fantastic. The airport scene is also a highlight of the movie, to see all of these characters onscreen together is truly amazing and as comic book fan I was in heaven. I still can’t believe that we got to see Spiderman making a Star Wars reference, whilst he was swinging around Giant Man, the nerd part of my brain went into overload and I physically couldn’t wipe off the massive, stupid grin that was on my face. The final battle is also pretty cool.
The third act starts off with Tony Stark deciding that he may be wrong about Bucky and that it wasn’t him who set off the bomb in Wakanda, so he, Bucky and Cap team up again to go and confront Zemo, but then the three are shown a CCTV tape from one of Bucky’s past missions, which reveals that it was in fact Bucky that killed Tony’s parents when he was being mind controlled and that Cap knew about this the whole time. This results in Tony being overcome with rage and attacking Cap and Bucky, during the fight he rips off Bucky’s robot arm, but Cap manages to overpower him and he sticks his shield through Tony’s ark reactor, shutting down his suit. We then learn that Black Panther has followed Tony and intends to kill Bucky for setting off the bomb that killed his father, but when he learns that Zemo was behind it, he confronts him and demands an explanation. Zemo tells him that his family were killed when Ultron attacked Sekovia and that he has planned to destroy the Avengers ever since, but because he knew he couldn’t take them down himself, he decided to instead pit them against each other and let them kill one another. Panther then decides that he is sick of seeing people being consumed by revenge and decides to let Zemo live, but Zemo attempts to kill himself anyway, before Panther stops him, telling him that he must remain alive to answer for his crimes. After their fight, Stark tells Cap that he doesn’t deserve his shield, and so Cap drops his shield and helps Bucky out of the bunker. The movie ends with Cap busting his teammates out of prison, where they were put after the airport battle and going into hiding in Black Panther’s mansion house in Wakanda. While the movie is fairly long I did feel that it could have went on a while longer, it’s almost as if the films are at a point now where they know they are going to continue the story in a few months, so they don’t even bother writing a proper ending for the films. This is the only criticism that I have though and like I said we will be getting another Marvel movie in a few months anyway so it doesn’t really matter how this one ends. So yeah, best Marvel movie so far and whether you are a comic book fan or not, this is a damn good time.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Writings Of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794 1796); The Age Of Reason in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Thomas Paine was a political theorist who was perhaps best known for his support for the American Revolution in his pamphlet Common Sense. In what might be his second best known work, The Age of Reason, Paine argued in favor of deism and against the Christian religion and its conception of God. By deism it is meant the belief in a creator God who does not violate the laws of nature by communicating through revelation or miracles The book was very successful and widely read partly due to the fact that it was written in a style which appealed to a popular audience and often implemented a sarcastic, derisive tone to make its points.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.